I believe Amendment 66 would be an incredible improvement to how K-12 education is funded in the state of Colorado. Requiring the state to spend money where it should be spent and allocating funds to poorer neighborhoods are much-needed initiatives within this state. Sadly, I have to vote “no” because the amendment also increases taxes.

The state already has enough money coming in, or at least that is what the legislature has expressed through its actions of late. When legislators passed a bill allowing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, they implied they have plenty of money to go around and had room in the budget to pay for anything. Now they are asking for more money?

The legislature needs to repeal the bill that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and cut other lower-priority programs first. Once they have shown they can do a lot with a little, I will be inclined to give them more to spend.

Brice Lingle, Littleton

This letter was published in the Oct. 28 edition.

A major flaw in Amendment 66 is that it creates a constitutional requirement that every year Colorado must earmark 43 percent of all state sales, excise and income tax revenues for education.

This provision recklessly ties the hands of future legislatures and governors, taking away their ability to prioritize and balance the needs of the state in the future. What if we have more natural disasters like the floods and fires we faced this past couple of years? What about already-identified needs for repairing and replacing dangerously degraded roads and bridges? What if our elected representatives believe that more money needs to be spent on public safety or public health?

Amendment 66 is dangerous and short-sighted in dictating minimum education funding levels in the state constitution.

Anne Campbell, Monument

This letter was published in the Oct. 28 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

In their argument promoting Amendment 66, Brad Busse and Scott Mader (“Vote YES: A better future for the next generation”) state that passage will help pay for implementing notable reforms. One such reform is to ensure that all students have highly effective teachers. Great idea, but how can we do this? First we have to find a way to “grade” the teachers. Then, unless we can bring under-performing teachers up to a higher standard, do we fire them and somewhere find better ones? Also, how do we require every child to be reading at grade level by third grade? Do we retain those students who don’t measure up rather than promote them? Perhaps we use some of the additional money for coaches to help them improve their reading skills.

Kathy Krieger, Bailey

This letter was published in the Oct. 20 edition.

Kelly Maher’s column (“Vote NO: Unfair to Colorado families, students and teachers”) is another scare tactic with baseless innuendo used to misdirect and misguide the public. If she has any real facts about the effect on the classroom outcomes and the real facts about the “bloat” of school administrations, she and Compass Colorado would serve the public better by providing them rather than an agenda that is based on ideological misinformation. And while they’re at it, instead of advocating for “no-tax-whatever-the-results,” they should look to the benefits of investing in the future of our children and the legacy that we leave behind.

D. Jeffrey Brothers, Castle Rock

This letter was published in the Oct. 20 edition.

The point-counterpoint columns on Amendment 66 glossed over an important consideration referred to by Brad Busse and Scott Mader as a “two-step income-tax rate increase.” There are two considerations with the increase.

First, not only do higher-income households spend more and thus pay more sales tax, but they also live in more expensive homes in school districts with higher mill levies. Thus they already pay more taxes for education.

The second consideration is setting the precedent of a graduated state income tax. Business leaders could become leery of moving their company to Colorado or expanding in Colorado for fear that the taxes on job creators will continually increase as it has in California.

William S. Waldman, Lakewood

This letter was published in the Oct. 20 edition.

Any attempt to understand the big picture of Amendment 66 needs a historical perspective. What I would find most helpful is to know how often in the past 30 years we have been asked to increase taxes for education, with details and results:

• How much was asked for, and for what specific purpose?

• Was it passed?

• What was achieved? Provide outcomes and results.

• What means were used to evaluate results? How rigorously? By whom?

As a taxpayer I don’t need hype about what the government wants to do; they inherently want more money and control. What I and voters need to know is have they delivered previously, and how well?

I believe true reform is needed, but without a pullback from failed initiatives and cutting bloated administrative waste, I have no incentive to provide more money. Education must learn to live within an appropriate budget. Proponents need to justify why restructuring requires additional money and prove from the record that the Education Department can be trusted.

Sharon Routt, Louisville

This letter was published online only.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Maybe money can’t buy happiness, but few people prefer poverty. Mike Rosen contends there’s “flimsy” correlation between school funding and good school results. But one can tighten the budget only so long before the cuts really hurt. Colorado’s schools took a terrible hit from the lean years of the Great Recession. Class sizes increased. Enrichment programs like music — which consistently improves student performance — were slashed.

Teachers bought supplies with their own money. Amendment 66 will help restore much of what has been lost. Businesspeople support Amendment 66 because they know good schools contribute to recruitment and an educated workforce. Colorado’s school spending per capita is way below that of neighboring states like Nebraska and Kansas. More money will go a long way to improving our schools. If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Kathy Taylor, Louisville

This letter was published in the Oct. 14 edition.

Mike Rosen writes that a progressive income tax will drive “higher-income earners out of the state to low-tax places like Texas.” Really? A tax rate is the big difference between Colorado and Texas? Silly me — I thought I lived here because of any of a thousand other reasons that make Colorado a great place to be.

Warren Paul, Littleton

This letter was published in the Oct. 14 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Your editorial on Amendment 66 downplays the obvious deal-killer in this amendment — the huge tax increase. Why should we put our state economy and quality-of-life standing at risk with such an onerous tax increase? Supporters of this job killer and economic burden haven’t shown us why nearly $1 billion is needed to attempt to “fix” our education system. The nonpartisan state information booklet on the amendment notes, in the arguments against Amendment 66, “This approach lacks real accountability … .” Instead we are getting misleading ads talking about a cost of “$133.”

Your editorial and these ads are more “tax and spend” with no assurance on how the dollars get spent. A “no” vote is the only sensible response to this poorly crafted plan.

Doug Wilhelm, Littleton

This letter was published in the Oct. 13 edition.

Over the last 20 years, The Denver Post and the Colorado business community have been demanding “reforms” that they feel elicit more accountability from teachers. It is good to hold individuals accountable for the quality of their work. The problem is: How do we hold the community accountable for its support of public schools? Our constitution, created by the citizens, has set parameters for funding, but based on those parameters, Colorado has been underfunding its schools to the tune of $1 billion each year for the last five years. Amendment 66 begins to hold the taxpayers accountable for providing teachers with the resources they need to do their job well and thus meet the standards set by the state legislature.

Our teachers are being asked to build skyscrapers with hammers and are then beaten up for not doing a great job.

Please vote “yes” on Amendment 66. You can help 25,000 children get a good head start in preschool, or you can buy a Peyton Manning jersey for the same cost. Which is more important?

Sally Augden, Denver

This letter was published in the Oct. 13 edition.

Amendment 66, which proposes to raise state individual income tax rates and require that “at least 43 percent of state income, sales, and excise tax revenue … pay for public education,” is a total roadblock to state government operations, especially emergency funding for natural disasters. And for Gov. John Hickenlooper to supposedly announce that this tax increase will get Colorado “the No. 1 public education system in the country” is preposterous.

Money does not guarantee excellence in schools. Reportedly $5 million has been raised so far from donors for promoting this bill. That money could have gone directly to the schools, but instead we will be continually bombarded by TV commercials to sell this bill.

Paula Neumann, Westminster

This letter was published in the Oct. 13 edition.

As a businessman, I am encouraging everyone to support Amendment 66 because it is a good investment.

Good schools are fundamental to a viable economy and quality of life in our communities. The quality of our schools influences the jobs that our community attracts, the dining and entertainment options, and the value of our homes.
Providing the opportunity for our young people to have a quality education is the best way I know to provide a hand up. Most other things we do to help are a handout. The handouts are temporary and not sustainable.

Colorado has initiated many reforms in the last few years, specifically Senate Bill 191 and this year’s Senate Bill 213, which put Colorado at the head of educational reform nationally. We will not be “just throwing money at the same old broken system.” This is a reformed system that will provide more for the gifted and talented. It will increase achievement of those with more limited backgrounds, which we desperately need to sustain our economy and quality of life.

Again, Amendment 66 is a good investment that will pay us dividends in years to come.

Bob Tointon, Greeley

This letter was published in the Oct. 13 edition.

Let’s see. The Post endorses Amendment 66, sort of. You like it except for the fact that the tax hike is larger than you want, and you are fearful of the teachers union and its lawsuit to overturn a key reform in the bill. Further, you wrote that the suit is “another example of why teachers unions continue to get in the way of educating our children.” And Senate Bill 213, the Public School Finance Act, could not be implemented if Amendment 66 fails. That bill is a 100-page monster full of all sorts of questionable policy.

You have convinced me. I will vote “no” on Amendment 66.

Joe Power, Denver

This letter was published in the Oct. 13 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Vincent Carroll’s insightful and revealing comments suggest that Amendment 66 includes a hidden agenda. I believe that when voters are asked to pay $950 million in additional taxes, the needs, objectives, how the money will be spent, and the anticipated results should be expressed in clear, simple language that hides nothing. Likewise voters should be assured that every student covered will receive a fair shake concerning money spent on that student’s education, and the adequacy of the facilities, teachers and principals provided.

Peter Graebner, Conifer

This letter was published in the Oct. 6 edition.

Amendment 66 successfully addresses many education needs in Colorado. It will fix many of the shortfalls embedded in our public school system. It will guarantee full-day kindergarten to every 5-year-old. It will add funding for special education and gifted students. It will set up an innovation fund to help schools implement best and proven practices to raise student achievement levels. And most importantly, it will change the way per-pupil spending is calculated to make that funding more equitable throughout Colorado. The new counting method makes this possible with a minimal tax increase.

Our state is woefully behind most of the nation in how much we invest in public schools, yet we value education as a means to prepare students to be as productive and thoughtful as their abilities allow. The League of Women Voters of Colorado urges every voter to vote “yes” on Amendment 66.

Let’s see: The Post reports that proponents of Amendment 66, the school finance revamp and tax hike, have passed the $5 million mark in campaign contribution collections. I suggest they put that money where their mouths are and donate it to fund education in Colorado.

Why burden taxpayers with yet another new tax? It seems like a monumental waste to spend that kind of money on a political campaign when it could be used for the very reforms that proponents want.

Carla J. Wilson, Denver

This letter was published in the Oct. 6 edition.

Amendment 66 backers are canvassing door-to-door. Of course we all want our kids to have the best education possible, but raising my state income taxes by roughly 15 percent is not the way to accomplish that. I have some interaction with the behind-the-scenes employees of one of our state’s largest school districts. The stories of blatant waste coupled with my own observations lead me to believe that the schools really don’t need more of the taxpayers’ money. Instead, they need to manage what they have considerably better. Most of us have to do more with less. The schools are not exempt from that belt-tightening. I’m voting “no” on Amendment 66.

Tom McIntosh, Aurora

This letter was published online only.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

I will vote “no” on Amendment 66 precisely because it attempts to fund Senate Bill 191. I don’t see reform in SB 191. I see an onerous law that was seriously underfunded and flawed in the same way that standardized testing is flawed — it is punitive and it scapegoats hard-working teachers for the flaws of society and the ills of poverty.

The fact that Amendment 66 will devote a third of the proposed $950 million tax increase to more bloated government in the form of more government workers and educational managers — instead of putting the money directly into schools in the form of lower class sizes, modernizing and repairs of old schools, and an end to fees that parents pay out — shows me that Amendment 66 is seriously flawed and should be voted down.

Gerry Camilli, Englewood

This letter was published in the Sept. 30 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.